EPTThe Goddamn Economy: A Civilized Version - Page 22
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
ahrara_
Afghanistan1715 Posts
| ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On January 31 2009 11:33 ahrara_ wrote: lol republicans i agree bro in all seriousness, this food stamp business does not exclude other welfare. i don't see why it is a big deal. | ||
|
L
Canada4732 Posts
The liberal assumption is always that government knows better than you what you need. It is also that government loves your children more than you do and will take better care of them. Instead of your bullshit all encompassing "its government spending ergo its bad" why don't you actually develop a rational as to why people at risk should get a subsidy towards doing anything they want instead of doing what they need if they are indeed going to get such assistance. What, exactly, does having 400$ specifically allocated to food do for the rest of the recipient's income? Does it mean that they can go out and buy booze with the money that's left over? Sure. Does it mean they can go out and do whatever they want with whatever other cash they have? Sure. But that comes after the family is fed. There's a human element in our market based economy: 1.People buy what they WANT to buy over what they NEED to buy. And 2.People have requisite needs to survive. Arguing that since 2., the want in 1. must follow encompass what they need is a gigantic fallacy, especially when one person is in control of the income, and others depend on his stream of revenue. Gambling problems, drug addictions, alcohol overuse aren't shadow problems; they spawned a massive movement which in part led to the enfranchisement of women. If you think this scenario is different now for whatever reason, you might want to look into the co-incidence of video lottery terminals (lol gambling crack) with usage after paychecks in poor areas of towns: hint hint, VLTs are concentrated in poor areas of town and their usage massively spikes after payday. Everyone has their foibles, and pretending they don't exist because everyone in society should benefit according to some pseudo-protestant merit at the expense of actually helping people is absolutely disgusting. | ||
|
dybydx
Canada1764 Posts
| ||
|
Savio
United States1850 Posts
On January 31 2009 14:23 Jibba wrote: You might be right on this. There's obviously the risk that they'll "abuse" the money, but abuse in this case is fairly relative and the same could be said for other things. The USDA did a research report on it and their conclusion was that cash instead of stamp programs cause a downturn in food spending, hurting the agriculture industry. I haven't looked at the report, but it wouldn't surprise me if they inaccurately account for the actual amount of food purchased and I'm not sure how they came to their "15% towards non-food items" figure. It strikes me that in writing the Welfare Reform Act (1996), the food stamp program was virtually unchanged. It'd be interesting to take a look at the votes on it and see who was trading what. It actually come out of the House Budget committee from John Kasich (R-OH.) Every act is written by staffers and lobbyists, but it doesn't seem like he has much of a connection to agriculture, since he's mostly about finance. Maybe it was just overlooked or they had serious moral concerns. EDIT: Seriously, I fucking hate you Savio for making me do public policy analysis on the weekend. http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/fanrr12/fanrr12d.pdf http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/31002/1/21010174.pdf http://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecolet/v67y2000i1p75-85.html http://www.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-9092(199511)77:4<960:ATAEEO>2.0.CO;2-O&cookieSet=1 http://www.myoops.org/twocw/mit/NR/rdonlyres/Economics/14-03Intermediate-Applied-MicroeconomicsFall2000/3C72A0B4-5946-4E0C-B695-5C5C3D64F03F/0/lec71.pdf I'm lazy so I'm going to trust these results from the Whitmore study, Whitmore being an assistant prof at Chicago's public policy school. I never thought about the agriculture industry/lobbying aspect of food stamps before. They of course would be in support of them. All the findings you list sound about right. People value $1 of food stamps at about 50-60 cents (the market price for food stamps). Also, I am sure that food stamps DO cause people to buy more food than they normally would since it essentially lowers the relative price of food. But one other thought I had was that your professor found that changing from stamps to money led to a reduction in calories. I would say that is a positive aspect of changing. Most Americans suffer from TOO many calories rather than too little and this is even MORE true among the poor and minorities. It seems paradoxical, but poor people take in more calories, and have a much greater relative risk for obesity, metabolic syndrome and diabetes. Diabetes is seriously out of control in this country. I never realized just how crazy it is until I got deep into med school but it is the plague of our time. | ||
|
Savio
United States1850 Posts
On January 31 2009 15:32 L wrote: So in the case of people who have proven themselves to not know what they need due to obvious mismanagement of their finances or having been sucked into an addictive, self destructive lifestyle the government's role should be that of a facilitator? Awesome! Hey, why don't we legalize crack and allow people to buy it and OD, then lay in the streets: the government can't tell them shit, they know what's best for themselves! Instead of your bullshit all encompassing "its government spending ergo its bad" why don't you actually develop a rational as to why people at risk should get a subsidy towards doing anything they want instead of doing what they need if they are indeed going to get such assistance. What, exactly, does having 400$ specifically allocated to food do for the rest of the recipient's income? Does it mean that they can go out and buy booze with the money that's left over? Sure. Does it mean they can go out and do whatever they want with whatever other cash they have? Sure. But that comes after the family is fed. There's a human element in our market based economy: 1.People buy what they WANT to buy over what they NEED to buy. And 2.People have requisite needs to survive. Arguing that since 2., the want in 1. must follow encompass what they need is a gigantic fallacy, especially when one person is in control of the income, and others depend on his stream of revenue. Gambling problems, drug addictions, alcohol overuse aren't shadow problems; they spawned a massive movement which in part led to the enfranchisement of women. If you think this scenario is different now for whatever reason, you might want to look into the co-incidence of video lottery terminals (lol gambling crack) with usage after paychecks in poor areas of towns: hint hint, VLTs are concentrated in poor areas of town and their usage massively spikes after payday. Everyone has their foibles, and pretending they don't exist because everyone in society should benefit according to some pseudo-protestant merit at the expense of actually helping people is absolutely disgusting. Just a few things to consider: 1. If people want drugs, they simply sell their food stamps for money, then buy drugs. If someone is actually addicted, then they WILL dupe the system to get what they want. Food stamps do NOT fix this problem. 2. Nearly 10% of the entire US population is on food stamps. The number of these who would tell their family, "screw you, I am buying drugs" is most likely tiny in comparison. But... 3. For all 28 million people on food stamps, there is a LARGE loss to inefficiency every single of month of every single year to every single family. Neither solution will fix ALL the problems, but one creates a problem for 28 million people every single month while the other is a problem for...maybe 1 million of those? That seems pretty generous. Also, by your reasoning, we shouldn't provide $$$ payments at any time, whether it be unemployment benefits, or social security, stimulus checks or simple redistributive tax refunds because ANY of those people could go and spend all their money and their check on booze and screw their family over. The problem with addiction is that you really can't help those people unless you take the children out of the home because the food stamps get sold, the free health care doesn't get used because they don't even take their kids to the doctor. But the fact that these families are in terrible circumstances, doesn't justify screwing over 28 million people and wasting billions of dollars to inefficiency. Programs like substance treatment programs and social services help families in addiction. Those are the best tools we have as society to deal with these complicated cases. | ||
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
| ||
|
rushz0rz
Canada5300 Posts
On January 31 2009 17:34 Jibba wrote: BTW why the fuck are we still making pennies? So it is possible to have 21 cents. | ||
|
Savio
United States1850 Posts
Although there are several other countries that use our currency. Ecuador for example gave up its own currency and uses dollars. Now a penny in Ecuador is worth quite a bit more. I was there when they changed the bus fares from 18 cents to like 23 cents, and the people were all in an uproar. | ||
|
ahrara_
Afghanistan1715 Posts
| ||
|
L
Canada4732 Posts
Also, by your reasoning, we shouldn't provide $$$ payments at any time, whether it be unemployment benefits, or social security, stimulus checks or simple redistributive tax refunds because ANY of those people could go and spend all their money and their check on booze and screw their family over. Err, no, there's a difference between someone being between jobs or someone getting a tax refund because he's in a lower bracket compared to someone being in a high risk group who can't pay for food. The problem with addiction is that you really can't help those people unless you take the children out of the home because the food stamps get sold, the free health care doesn't get used because they don't even take their kids to the doctor. But the fact that these families are in terrible circumstances, doesn't justify screwing over 28 million people and wasting billions of dollars to inefficiency. Why do you assume that solutions can't be cumulative and instead must be mutually exclusive? Additionally there's a concrete barrier which you yourself noted between food stamps being traded for money; food stamps typically aren't valued at full price, which means that a household is better off redeeming their stamps for full value before using other streams of revenue. Nevermind that there's a solid barrier in requiring the trades in the first place. Programs like substance treatment programs and social services help families in addiction. Those are the best tools we have as society to deal with these complicated cases. Neither solution will fix ALL the problems, but one creates a problem for 28 million people every single month while the other is a problem for...maybe 1 million of those? That seems pretty generous. Rates of self destructive addictive behavior are far higher than 1/28, especially in the high risk groups that actually recieve food stamps. The only people who have 'problems' with the current system are those that eat far less than they're allocated. If that's the case, and the issue is documented and systemic, the solution isn't to revoke distribution of food stamps; its to reduce the amount distributed. | ||
|
poilord
Germany3252 Posts
This will help me to prepare for an oral exam tomorrow. | ||
|
Boblion
France8043 Posts
A lot of people who are not on food stamps buy drugs. Should we tax them more and then provide them with their needs? Drugs are illegal period. I am willing to bet that the few who would buy drugs would be less of a problem than the millions losing potential benefit (that is every person on food stamps in every state, every month). Benefits of what dude ? Your government must help you if you are starving, not if you want a new pair of nike or two packs of beer. Like someone said earlier, food stamp prevent somewhat this kind of behaviour because it is harder to change stamps for real money ( you will probably lose value ) then to buy your stuff than if the government give you some $ ... EDIT: besides, what is to keep them from spending the money they would have spent on food and spending THAT on drugs instead? Food stamps do NOT solve that problem. I still have yet to hear a good explanation for why food stamps is better than giving someone straight up money. Although it is heavily discussed some say so: Finally, while the evidence is mixed as to the effect of the food stamps program on weight gain, studies conducted by the USDA on the receipts of food stamps purchases have found that program participants are more likely to spend their income on fruits, vegetables and healthful foods than low-income consumers who do not participate in the program. Oh and Savio, more calories doesn't always mean junk food... | ||
|
Savio
United States1850 Posts
The fact still remains that America suffers much more from too many calories than we do from too little. And poor people and minorities are particularly at risk for the Metabolic Syndrome and diabetes. EDIT: I think I have said all that can be said regarding food stamps vs. direct monetary transfers. Anything else will just be repetition. | ||
|
L
Canada4732 Posts
But more calories DOES mean higher blood sugar False. SO FALSE. Like, I'm tearing at the eyes at how false that statement is. Maybe if the caloric intake is in unfavorable carbohydrate poor glycemic index foods, yeah, but those would be the aforementioned 'junk foods'. The fact still remains that America suffers much more from too many calories than we do from too little. And poor people and minorities are particularly at risk for the Metabolic Syndrome and diabetes. Is that because of food stamps, or because the cheapest foods are largely those which are not organic, have high fructose corn syrup as their source of sweetener (which largely bypasses most of your body's metabolic control mechanisms), and have significant deficits in many essential nutrients? Is it because poorer people tend to work longer hours for less income, limiting their time for exercize and cooking? Is it because poorer people tend to have far less ability to access proper health care to recieve preventative treatment or diagnosis? You've linked Poor people, calories, and health issues together, but attempt to submit that there's a causal relationship between 2 that have no causal relationship. Poor argumentation. | ||
|
Boblion
France8043 Posts
I don't really know how exactly the food stamps system works but fruits and vegetables should be a priority especially because junk food is cheaper and poor people are less likely to spend money to buy "good" food. For example there should be more special tickets ( or with higher value ) for "healthy" food. | ||
|
Savio
United States1850 Posts
Perhaps you could argue that food stamps lead to people eating better kinds of food, but you would have to back that up with data and then show that whatever benefit is gained from it is worth losing a few billion dollars of "lost benefit" to inefficiency every year. A few billion that could have been used in some other way to help poor people. | ||
|
ToSs.Bag
United States201 Posts
On January 30 2009 12:12 Savio wrote: Teachers Unions are to blame for the lack of incentives to teach well. Think about what the "job" of a union is....It is to "protect" its members right? Unions inherently seek to: 1. Raise salaries of current teachers 2. Inhibit the firing of union members 3. Lighten the teaching load or burden (make life easier) 4. Raise members benefits But because of #1, schools can't afford to hire more teachers so the teacher/student ratio rises. Because of #2, bad teachers can not be easily replaced by better teachers. Because of #3, school systems (who already can't fire bad teachers), lose the ability to pressure teachers into improving. So because of our unions we end up with lower quality, expensive teachers...and not enough of them. American universities do better than our grade schools because GUESS WHAT...there are no unions messing up the system! That is also one reason why foreign car companies are doing better than our "big 3". Unions were needed once, but their time is over and they are only holding our car companies back, and our education. My biggest fear from this new democratic administration is that they will pass laws trying to strengthen unions. Its good politics for them since unions are democratic powerhouses, but it is bad for America. I don't think I went into this as much as I should have, but yes, Teachers unions are almost entirely to blame for that, but as far as the money not being there, believe me, its there, it is WAY there.... but money isnt the issue. | ||
|
Person514cs
1004 Posts
Exactly like how all the minerals are running out in a starcraft game. | ||
|
L
Canada4732 Posts
The overall point I was making is that Americans are too FAT, not too skinny and we certainly don't suffer from not being able to get enough calories so increasing the amount of food eaten can't be an argument for food stamps against direct monetary payments. You mean like the above mentioned pointer towards the increased spending on healthier foods, for instance? How's about the multiplicative effect of prevention dollars on the massive overspending on health care in the united states? Perhaps you could argue that food stamps lead to people eating better kinds of food, but you would have to back that up with data and then show that whatever benefit is gained from it is worth losing a few billion dollars of "lost benefit" to inefficiency every year. A few billion that could have been used in some other way to help poor people. Additionally, the statement that america is fat, the poor people are americans, thus people qualifying for food stamps are fat americans that should spend less money on food because they eat too much is hilarious. Food quality substantially drops as you drop through the economic classes; the classic example is where malt liquor was cheaper than water, so people got fucking hammered 24/7. The entirety of the health issues surrounding golden rice are also relevant. Next up: Potato famine. Etc etc. Add that to the fact that the least expensive food is now generally the most processed food: whole grain breads cost more than white loafs, organic ingredients cost more than inorganic ingredients, natural fruit costs more than imitation fruit. I wasn't actually trying to explain diabetes pathophysiology. You were making a hilariously inaccurate post about something you know incredibly little about, and you got called on it. You were, actually, trying to explain the pathophysiology of increased caloric intake as a method of supporting your assertion that food stamps are bad, but you made the assumption that food stamps lead to higher caloric intake without any causal evidence (circumstantial or not), as well as the assumption that higher caloric intake leads causally to increased rates of disease. Overall: Rofl. Stick to economics. | ||
| ||
